|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
07-26-2012, 06:46 PM
|
| |
Unlikely. Their test is on an automated bench and they do it all the time. The test starts automatically at 50m. If you do the math, the camera did a 9fps burst and then slowed down and missed focus. But for the first half, it DID focus correctly, so AF.C must have been active. Moreover, independently of buffer issues, it did miss focus at 16m. So, I rather assume some algorithmic flaws which may or may not be fixable in a firmware update. I agree that it is strange though.
Btw, the Fnac charts contain more gems which are otherwise difficult to find. The walker test is more indicative of how snappy the AF is (E-M5 is good here, although not best). And the distance of the FIRST AF.C shot tells how fast the AF.C is able to lock onto a target.
And their stabilisation test shows that the E-M5 stabilization is outstanding indeed! While they see no effect for the Pentax Q, about 2 stops improvement with Pentax K-5 and 3 stops with Nikon, they see 5 stops with the E-M5! And they simulate true human vibration taking 600 shots! Everybody may look at Dpreview. But those guys at Fnac (which is a store!) probably do a better job, esp. if combined with the results of their colleagues around the corner, i.e. DxO.
|
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
07-26-2012, 03:52 PM
|
| |
And it is no secret both terms are derogative. Enough said.
It may be the EM-5 failed in that test for rather trivial reasons, like not realizing the subject is moving (because Olympus says burst rate drops to 4.2 fps with AF.C). But it remains a sad fact that it wouldn't be able to follow a 50 km/h car for 3 seconds.
|
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
07-26-2012, 09:53 AM
|
| |
It is well documented below the result: 14-150 mm f/4-5.6 ED (and this needs no translation). Which they must use at 100mm. Seems like the best possible choice to me. For this test, they use the same lens for other µFT cameras. Note that they used the 12-50/3.5-6.3 for most other tests though. There is nothing which would prevent somebody from repeating the test.
And 200 mm equivalent length is very much representative for what AF.C is required for: to capture action like in sports, wildlife or BIF. When stopped-down depth of field is not enough (like an equivalent 50mm stopped down to f/11 to capture humans).
And why do you say Frog? I thought they're called French ...
|
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
07-26-2012, 07:50 AM
|
| |
The claim of the world's fastest is certainly wrong and this is what Olympus said when launching the camera:
And they never published those "in-house test conditions". Interestingly nobody ever sued them for that ;) Esp. as Olympus has a tradition to make such unverifiable claims.
So, while not actually the world's fastest, it is indeed fast enough for AF.S.
|
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
07-26-2012, 06:25 AM
|
| |
Olympus AF is indeed fast enough for all AF.S applications now. It feels very snappy.
However, it still doesn't compete well with AF.C. The only useful comparison I am aware of is the Labo FNAC test of the approaching 50 km/h car shot with 35-mm equivalent of 200mm focal length -- and observing at which distance it is loosing track ( http://multimedia.fnac.com/multimedia/editorial/labo/reflex_ete_2012.pdf ).
While most capable cameras fail around 10m (K-5, Alpha 57, D7000, 1100D etc.) and better cameras can go down to 7-8m (D800, D4, 5DmkIII) or less, the only contrast AF camera which can compete is Nikon 1. The Olympus E-M5 failed in that test (23m, I assume that the fast burst and focussing at the same time causes trouble) but other Olympus, like NEX and Panasonic, go up to typically ~15m. Note that there is a singularity at 0m, i.e., 5m means a 3x faster system than 15m.
|
